133 Wash. 2d 63 - State v. Buckner’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 2019
1 district · 11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Barakat v. Life Insurance · 120 Wash. 2d 879 - State v. Cauthron · 173 Ill. 2d 167 - People v. Miller · State v. Copeland · 454 Pa. Super. 207 - Commonwealth v. Blasioli
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The original opinion in this case also disapproved testimony in terms of statistical probabilities which implies or states that defendant is uniquely identified as the person in the human population who left the forensic sample. In 1993, this court accepted the proposition that an absolute identification of an individual could be made based upon DNA analysis provided that the technology exists to do so, because, except for identical twins, each individual’s DNA is unique. State v. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d 879, 900 , 846 P.2d 502 (1993). At the time Cauthron was decided, we understood that this stage of technology would exist only when the entire DNA molecule could be compared to another entire DNA molecule. Id. It is now apparent that is not the case, as explained in the newest report of the National Research Council’s Committee on DNA Forensic Science. That rejDort ... states: ‘The match probability computed in forensic analysis refers to a particular evidentiary profile. That profile might he said to be unique if it is so rare that it becomes unreasonable to suppose that a second person in the population might have the same profile.’ National Research Council, Commission on DNA Forensic Science: The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence 136 (1996). “Thus, we now conclude there should be no bar to an expert giving his or her expert opinion that, based upon an exceedingly small probability of a defendant’s DNA profile matching that of another in a random human population, the pro”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Young v. State“The match probability computed in forensic analysis refers to a particular evidentiary profile. That profile might be said to be unique if it is so rare that it becomes unreasonable to suppose that a second person in the population might have the same profile.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Buckner
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.